Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/flush_tlb: try flush_tlb_single one by one in flush_tlb_range

[Nick Piggin]

On 2 May 2012 21:38, Alex Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 05/02/2012 05:38 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 05:24:09PM +0800, Alex Shi wrote:
>>> For some of scenario, above equation can be modified as:
>>> (512 - X) * 100ns(assumed TLB refill cost) = X * 140ns(assumed invlpg cost)

It should not be that optimistic, because that equation assumes every
unflushed entry saves a TLB refill too.

I think it is always a good idea to make such fundamental primitives
cheaper though.


>> Also, have you run your patches with other benchmarks beside your
>> microbenchmark, say kernbench, SPEC<something>, i.e. some other
>> multithreaded benchmark touching shared memory? Are you seeing any
>> improvement there?
>
>
> I tested oltp reading and specjbb2005 with openjdk. They should not much
> flush_tlb_range calling. So, no clear improvement.
> Do you know benchmarks which cause enough flush_tlb_range?

x86 does not do such invlpg flushing for munmap either, as far as I
can see?

It would be a little more work to make this happen, but it might show
more benefit, provided glibc does not free too huge chunks at once,
it should apply far more often.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/